REPORT: County Attorney Cuevas noted this was a Special Meeting of the County Commission called for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, considering Straw Ballot questions for the electors of Miami-Dade County, calling a Special Election in conjunction with the November 6, 2012 General Election to place such proposed amendments and straw ballots before the voters, and conducting a public hearing thereon.

He noted the following change to the Agenda had been requested: Commissioner Heyman had requested that Agenda Item 10A8 Alternate No. 1 be withdrawn.

County Attorney Cuevas advised that a scrivener’s error existed in Agenda Item 10A18 and should be corrected on handwritten page 9 to change “2012” to “2014.”

It was moved by Commissioner Sosa that the Commission approve the foregoing changes to the August 23, 2012, meeting Agenda. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Edmonson, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 13-0.

1B

MOMENT OF SILENCE

REPORT: Chairman Martinez called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. The Commission convened in a moment of silence.

Commissioner Moss pointed out that tomorrow (8/24) would mark the 20th Anniversary of Hurricane Andrew’s landfall in Miami-Dade County, and asked that the families impacted by this event be remembered as the Commission observed the moment of silence.

1C

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORT: The moment of silence was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Evelyn Greer, 5900 SW 97th Street, Vice Chair of the Charter Review Task Force, urged the Commission members to take a position on the issues considered by that body. She urged the Commission to improve the citizens’ ability to petition the government.

Mr. Carlos Manrique, 23 NW 136th Place, noted he was a member of the Charter Review Task Force and pointed out that this body considered all of the issues at length. He indicated that he would be pleased to answer any questions the Commission might have.

Mr. Terry Murphy, 8346 Dundee Terrace, spoke in support of the Task Force recommendations that aimed to improve how the County operated under a strong mayor, namely giving the Mayor control of intergovernmental affairs, eliminating the Mayor’s veto authority on collective bargaining impasse decisions, requiring the Mayor to delegate the responsibilities of Sheriff to a police officer, instituting a succession plan, and delegating procurement authority to the Clerk of the Courts if the Mayor had a conflict of interest.

Ms. Yolanda Aguillar, 6404 SW 12th Street, noted the Task Force members devoted countless hours to the consideration of the issues and requested the Commission members to seriously consider the Task Force recommendations.

Mr. Lawrence Percival, 11945 SW 127th Street, Greater Kendall Community Activists, requested that the Commission members identify a better process to deal with a mayoral conflict of interest in the procurement process. He spoke in support of countywide incorporation and of the proposed ten percent signature requirement for incorporation petitions. Mr. Percival urged the Commission members to support allowing Charter Review Task Force recommendations that were approved by a two-thirds majority vote to be directly placed on the ballot.

Ms. Janet Novatney, 9941 SW 101st Street, spoke in support of the Charter Review Task Force recommendations regarding County Commission term limits, vote requirements to change the Urban Development Boundary, removal of the requirement for a notary in the petition process, salaries for commissioners, and commissioners having conflicting outside employment. She spoke in opposition to the proposed ten percent signature requirement for incorporation petitions, noting the ballot language was confusing.

Ms. Catherine Christofis, 2430 NE 135th Street, expressed concern that the Charter Review Task Force members were disproportionately pro incorporation, and that the Task Force members supported stripping citizens in seven municipalities of the right to appeal to the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. She spoke in opposition to incorporation.

Mr. Robert Csanalose, 8021 SW 97th Street, spoke in opposition to incorporation that would add taxes to residents who were suffering during this financial crisis.

Mr. Alphonso McCray, 18040 SW 104th Avenue, spoke in support of allowing residents the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to be incorporated. He spoke in opposition to the proposal to require signatures from 25 percent of registered voters in the incorporation process.

Ms. Raquel Platt, 17660 NW 82nd Court, noted the Palm Springs North Civic Association was opposed to the proposal to change the signature requirement for incorporation petitions to ten percent. She spoke in opposition to the movement to name a section of northwest Miami-Dade County as North Pointe.

Ms. Bari Schanerman, 2145 NE 207th Street, spoke in support of the proposal to change the signature requirement for incorporation petitions to ten percent.

Mr. Michael Pizzi, Attorney, City of Medley, expressed concern that not every municipality was represented on the Task Force. He spoke in opposition to any change that would make the process more difficult for Virginia Gardens, Medley, and Miami Springs to complete the annexation which they had been pursuing for several years. He spoke in opposition to countywide incorporation without a comprehensive analysis.

Ms. Bev Gerald, 14271 SW 74th Court, spoke in support of Agenda Item 10A3, as well as 10A3 Alternate No. 2. She spoke in support of the proposal to change the signature requirement for incorporation petitions to ten percent.

Ms. David Allen, 13741 SW 97th Avenue, spoke in support of Agenda Items 10A3 and 10A3 Alternate No. 2. He spoke in support of the proposal to change the signature requirement for incorporation petitions to ten percent.

Mr. Samuel Mack, 9101 NW 7th Avenue, spoke in support of the Commission members placing all of these issues on the ballot and allowing the public the right to vote.

Mr. Oscar Cueto, 9670 Fontainebleau Boulevard #15, spoke in support of the Commission members placing all of these issues on the ballot and allowing the public the right to vote.

Mr. Claude Fabre, 10464 NW 5th Terrace, spoke in support of the ten percent signature requirement for incorporation petitions and of allowing citizens the right to vote.

Mr. Glenn Gopman, 2010 NE 198th Terrace, spoke in support of Agenda Items 10A3 and 10A3 Alternate No. 2, of the ten percent signature requirement for incorporation petitions, and of allowing citizens the right to vote.

Mr. John Rivera, 10680 NW 25th Street, noted incorporation has ramifications as it hampers the County’s ability to provide services in UMSA, including police services. He spoke in support of an elected Sheriff.

In response to Vice Chairwoman Edmonson’s question as to whether he was opposed to Agenda Item 10A3, Mr. Rivera said that he was opposed to incorporation, but if they were to take place, they should follow the Miami Lakes or Palmetto Bay models.

Mr. Joseph Centorino, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, said he would address Agenda Items 10A4 and 10A4 Alternate regarding the enforcement of the Citizens Bill of Rights. He noted at one point the Task Force members voted in favor of Agenda Item 10A4 Alternate, but this was changed at the last session, exempting a number of municipalities from the enforcement provisions of the Ethics Code. He said that to understand this issue, it was necessary to refer back to the creation of the Commission on Ethics (COE) in 1996. He indicated that when the COE was created, the Charter was amended to provide that the COE would enforce the Citizens Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, at that time, no penalties were specified, said Mr. Centorino, adding that it was necessary to correct this flaw to ensure that all of Miami-Dade County citizens have access to the COE for the enforcement of the Bill of Rights. He noted excluding some municipalities from this mechanism would create a discriminatory pattern.

Ms. Carol Keys, 12550 Palm Road, North Miami, spoke in support of the Commission on Ethics enforcing the Citizens Bill of Rights; however, she noted, the Task Force members proposed an amendment to eliminate seven municipalities from the jurisdiction of the COE because they had alternative remedies, such as going to court. She pointed out the prohibitive cost of this remedy. Ms. Keys said that Commissioner Heyman had put forth an alternate resolution restoring the jurisdiction of the COE over all municipalities, and she urged the Commission members to support the commissioner’s proposal.

Mr. Scott Galvin, 1755 NE 137th Terrace, North Miami, spoke in opposition to Agenda Item 10A4, and in favor of Agenda Item 10A4 Alternate. He said that if Item 10A4 was adopted, a resident of North Miami who had a concern about an ethics violation would have to hire an attorney and go to court. He noted this would disfranchise anybody who could not afford to pay these fees. He urged the Commission members to support Item 10A4 Alternate.

Mr. Lenny Feldman, 20630 NE 22nd Place, North East Miami, referred to Agenda Item 10A9 regarding franchise fees and utility taxes, and said the residents of North East Miami had various views on these issues. He noted North East Miami was a melting pot, and the citizens wanted to approach these issues with an open mind and heart. He spoke in support of the language in Agenda Items 10A9, 10A3, 10A3 Alternate 2.

Ms. Bari Schanerman, 2145 NE 207th Street, referred to Agenda Item 10A9 regarding franchise fees and utility taxes, noting if these fees and taxes remained with the County even after a municipality had been incorporated, it would be a poison pill. She said that if the language of the item was not changed it would eliminate some possible options for her community.

Mr. Alphonso McCray, 18040 SW 104th Avenue, said that he was in favor of straw ballots. He pointed out that the residents of the various districts did not necessarily have the same opinions on all issues, and the straw ballots provided commissioners with the ability to gauge the opinions of their constituents on certain issues.

Mr. David DiPuglia, 7911 NW 181st Street, Palm Springs North, noted the residents of Palm Springs North were opposed to incorporation and the proposal to change the signature requirement for incorporation petitions to ten percent. He spoke in opposition to the movement to name a section of northwest Miami-Dade County as North Pointe.

Mr. Zavier Garcia, Mayor, City of Miami Springs, 201 Westward Dr., said he was here on behalf of Miami Springs, Virginia Gardens, Doral and Medley. He spoke in opposition to Agenda Item 10A3 because it does not take into consideration the work that the aforementioned municipalities have been carrying out to annex the land for several years.

Chairman Martinez closed the public hearing after no one else appeared wishing to speak.

Commissioner Suarez asked to be allowed to make a point of order. He inquired whether the Chairman would allow a quick presentation on the expansion of the Tennis Center.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the Charter Amendments meeting be recessed. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Edmonson and upon being put to a vote, passed by a unanimous vote of those members present; (Commissioner Diaz was absent).

It was moved by Commissioner Suarez to convene the Board’s special meeting to consider the expansion of the Tennis Center. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman and upon being put to a vote, passed by a unanimous vote of those members present.

The Board proceeded to consider the proposed referendum question to be placed on the general election ballot for the purpose of asking the electors of Miami-Dade to approve the expansion of existing structures within the Tennis Center at Crandon Park, as requested by Commissioner Suarez.

Following consideration and adjournment of the Tennis Center meeting (See Legistar Meeting Key No. 3238 for the meeting minutes), it was moved by Commissioner Diaz that the Charter Amendment meeting be reconvened. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Edmonson and upon being put to a vote, passed by a unanimous vote of those members present.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO CLARIFY THE TITLES OF SUBSECTIONS, CORRECT AND UPDATE CROSS-REFERENCES BETWEEN PROVISIONS, AND DELETE REFERENCES TO OFFICES AND AGENCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman explained that this was a technical correction to the Charter, and moved that the item be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a unanimous vote of those members present; (Commissioner Suarez was absent).

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE HOME RULE CHARTER SHALL BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE AN EXTRAORDINARY VOTE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LAND WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY

REPORT: Commissioner Sosa noted this item was proposing a 2/3 majority vote for any Urban Development Boundary (UDB) expansion. She asked the County Attorney whether this was currently in the Miami-Dade Code.

County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that this rule was currently in the Code.

Commissioner Sosa pointed out that the November ballot was extremely long, and noted it was unnecessary to keep adding to it as this would confuse the public.

Chairman Martinez said he agreed with Commissioner Sosa, noting a number of items were an overreaction to public pressure, and should not be engraved into the County’s constitution. He said that if all of these items were included in the Charter, this would diminish the Board’s ability to adapt and legislate. He suggested, instead, that these items be left as ordinances, which are easier to amend. Chairman Martinez asked the County Attorney to indicate which items were already contained in the Code, either as resolutions or ordinances, and which items could be handled administratively.

Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal indicated that Agenda Item 10A2 already existed in the Code; Agenda Item 10A3 could only partially be accomplished by ordinance, as a number of the suggestions would have to be changed through the Charter which provides that the Board has control over incorporation; Agenda Item 10A5 could be accomplished by ordinance; Agenda Item 10A8 could partially be accomplished by the Board, but some of the suggestions would require a Charter amendment; Agenda Item 10A9 could be accomplished by ordinance; Agenda Item 10A13 could partially be accomplished by ordinance or resolution, but some of the suggestions would require a Charter amendment; Agenda Item 10A14 could be accomplished by code; Agenda Item 10A15 could mostly be accomplished by code, but the bid waiver provision would require a Charter amendment.

Referring to Agenda Item 10A13, Commissioner Sosa asked whether that question was not raised in the election already but voted down.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal confirmed that the question was in a slightly different form and was defeated by the voters.

Chairman Martinez asked his fellow commissioners what they wished to do regarding Agenda Items 10A2, 10A5 and 10A9 since they could be accomplished by ordinance or resolution.

Commissioner Heyman noted all of the items that she sponsored were from the Charter Review Task Force. She stated that she considered the Charter to be a constitutional, fundamental document which governs the way the County government functions. She pointed out that some of the items were brought to the Commission members’ attention by the Task Force members because the County now had a Strong Mayor form of government. Referring to Agenda Item 10A2, Commissioner Heyman said that in view of its importance, any proposed changes to the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should be approved by a 2/3 vote of the commissioners. She suggested that this be memorialized in the Charter, especially since the State Regulatory Agency had rescinded some of its monitoring responsibility.

Commissioner Moss said that he was in favor of having the residents vote on Agenda Item 10A2, because the UDB was such a crucial issue in this community. He pointed out that although this issue was currently contained in the Code, ordinances could be more easily changed than the Charter. Regarding Agenda Item 10A5, Commissioner Moss said that he would like to discuss it and he would be willing to change the way it was handled if this could be more effective. Referring to Agenda Item on 10A9, Commissioner Moss noted he would like to understand the proposal’s fiscal impact, and how it would impact the municipalities that had already incorporated. He pointed out that in a representative democracy, the leaders were elected to represent the people; thus it was not necessary to put everything on the ballot, since the elected officials could vote on behalf on the public.

In response to Chairman Martinez’ question Commissioner Moss reiterated that the UDB was of such importance that any proposal to change it should receive a 2/3 vote of the commissioners. He noted this set threshold was currently in an ordinance, but he believed it should be contained in the Charter which could not be changed as easily.

Commissioner Bell noted she agreed with Commissioners Heyman and Moss regarding Agenda Item 10A2, and it would not hurt to include the set threshold in the Charter.

Commissioner Monestime said that including Agenda Item 10A2 in the Charter would not make much difference, since in the past the Board had approved very few UDB items, it is such an important issue and the public is so involved in the process.

Commissioner Sosa said she believed the UDB was too important an issue to be left in an ordinance. She noted she was in support of placing Agenda Item 10A2 on the ballot to include it in the Charter.

Commissioner Jordan noted she considered herself a representative of the entire County, not just one district. She said that she did not think it was necessary to place Agenda Items 10A2, 10A5 and 10A9 on the ballot when they could be accomplished by ordinance. She noted she concurred with Commissioner Monestime that including Agenda Item 10A2 in the Charter was not necessary, because it would not make much difference as the ordinance already provided for the 2/3 vote. Referring to Agenda Item 10A9, Commissioner Jordan noted, until the Commission members decided how to define regional government, it would not make sense to place an item that dealt with franchise fees into the Charter. She said that if an item, which was intended to strengthen the UDB or the franchise fees, could be accomplished by ordinance, this would be the preferred option because it allowed flexibility. She pointed out that she could not remember an item that required a 2/3 vote and that had passed in the last few years.

Chairman Martinez noted the UDB items regarding Beacon Lakes, Lowes and David Brown were adopted with a 2/3 vote in the last few years.

Commissioner Jordan reiterated that if an item could be accomplished without amending the Charter, this would be the preferred option. She pointed out that some of these items had not even been proposed as ordinances.

Chairman Martinez noted if a ballot was overloaded, the public had a tendency to vote “no”; he provided the example of the Inspector General, which did not pass.

Commissioner Edmonson said that an ordinance could always be changed, and currently the ordinance provided for a 2/3 vote of the Commission members to change the UDB. She noted the purpose of the UDB was to protect natural resources, and placing this issue in the Charter would ensure that a future Board would not be able to change the super majority vote to a simple majority. Therefore, she said, she would support placing Agenda Item 10A2 on the ballot.

Commissioner Diaz noted he concurred with Commissioner Jordan. The commissioners were elected to represent the community and it was their responsibility to oversee boundaries. He said he believed that these issues should fall under the authority of the Commission, and the residents had recourse through the State and the courts. Therefore, he noted, he would not support including Agenda Item 10A2 in the Charter.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that Agenda Item 10A2 be placed on the ballot for inclusion in the Charter. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 10-3; (Chairman Martinez and Commissioners Jordan and Diaz voted “no”).

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND CREATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND CREATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121409]

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND CREATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121486)

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman proffered a friendly amendment to Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 2, and said that she would like to merge it with Alternate No. 1. She noted she agreed that the Clerk of the Courts was a neutral office; therefore, he should be removed and replaced by the Supervisor of Elections to canvass the signatures.

Chairman Martinez asked the Clerk whether Commissioner Heyman was referring to the same task that his office performed when petitions were certified during a recall process.

Mr. Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts, explained that the Clerk was the only office in Miami-Dade County that certified recall petitions because the Supervisor of Elections was appointed by the Mayor.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that the reason the Task Force identified the Clerk of the Courts to canvass the signatures was because of the conflict of interest with the Supervisor of Elections who was an appointed officer.

Mr. Ruvin pointed out that no conflict existed when it came to municipal petitions for incorporation. He said that the Charter Review members identified the Clerk’s office automatically because the recall was so recent, and they believed he did all of the canvassing. However, in the case of municipalities, Mr. Ruvin noted, the canvassing should be carried out by the Supervisor of Elections.

Commissioner Heyman asked that Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 2 be withdrawn, because it would be included as an amendment to Alternate No. 1.

Chairman Martinez announced that the Commission would consider Agenda Items 10A3 and 10A3 Alternate No. 1.

Commissioner Bell said she was proposing Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 because it would satisfy many of the concerns that were raised regarding Agenda Item 10A3. She asked the County Attorneys to clarify the difference between the original Agenda Item 10A3 and Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1.

Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks explained that in the original item, the Commission had no authority to disapprove of incorporations, except in two limited cases – when the boundaries of the area are not contiguous or when an unincorporated enclave would be created by the incorporation of the municipality. However, Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 restored the Commission’s discretion and authority to approve or deny incorporations. In addition, Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks noted the original item provided for two different elections but Alternate No. 1 combined both elections for one vote. Another comparison was that the original item had no expressed provision regarding who was responsible for drafting the incorporation charter, while Alternate No. 1 provided that the Incorporation Committee was to draft the charter and hold a public hearing. Another distinction was that the original item did not allow pre-agreed conditions, whereas Alternate No. 1 allowed the incorporated municipalities to contract with the County for police services, etc... Another difference between the two items was that the original item called for 10 percent of the residents to sign to initiate the petition process; however, Alternate No. 1 required 20 percent of the residents to sign to initiate the petition process. Finally, the original item requires a 2/3 vote of Commission members to approve an annexation, whereas Alternate No. 1 requires a simple majority to approve an annexation.

Commissioner Bell noted she wanted to assuage some of the concerns of municipalities that are currently undergoing annexation, and said that this would not negatively impact those cities. She thanked the members of the Charter Review Task Force for their commitment to this undertaking, and selfless efforts to recommend reforms intended to benefit the community. She pointed out that not every Commission member agreed with all of the recommendations; therefore, she had proposed two amendments in an effort to reach a compromise. She summarized the main elements of Agenda Item Alternate No. 1, noting it required 20 percent of the residents to sign to initiate a petition process, instead of 10 or 25 percent; the establishment of an Incorporation Committee; and at least one public hearing with adequate notice.

It was moved by Commissioner Bell that the Commission approve Agenda Item 10A3, Alternate No. 1, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman, followed by discussion.

Commissioner Sosa said she believed that this proposed item could lead to future problems, noting this Charter amendment could negatively affect the financial and operational stability of the public works/waste and police/fire services. She asked if this meant that the County would have one regional department for all these services. She stressed that the public should have the right to vote on whether they wanted to incorporate. She noted it was necessary to discuss a number of issues, including the small municipal governments that survive on property taxes only; annexation versus incorporation; and the impact to Miami Springs, Medley and those municipalities already in the incorporation process. She said she believed that the Charter Review Task Force membership lacked balance, because it was comprised of members who only had experience in municipalities. She asked who would be responsible for providing the public with the necessary information to make an informed decision.

Chairman Martinez relinquished the Chair to Vice Chairwoman Edmonson.

Vice Chairwoman Edmonson noted she supported Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1, because it gave the Commission members the authority to approve or deny incorporations. However, she was concerned that this petition process would not require a notary, which could lead to petition fraud.

County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that this petition process did not require a notary.

Vice Chairwoman Edmonson reiterated that this could potentially lead to petition fraud. She said that she would support Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 provided the petition process requires a notary.

Commissioner Monestime indicated that he supported Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1; however, he inquired why other types of petitions only required four percent of residents’ signatures, while this petition process required 20 percent. He said that he agreed with the ten percent proposed by the Charter Review Task Force, just to start the process and put the issue to the voters. He noted he agreed with rescinding the moratorium because people should have the right to vote to incorporate. Commissioner Monestime said that he represented North Dade, which was unincorporated, but he lived in the city of North Miami, and he wished the rest of North Dade was similar to North Miami. He pointed out that, although taxes were higher, the quality of life in a municipality was better; whereas services were decreasing in the unincorporated areas. He suggested lowering the percentage required for the petition process to ten percent.

Commissioner Bell pointed out that her item reduced the requirement to initiate the petition process from 25 to 20 percent.

Commissioner Bovo commended Commissioner Bell on her item and asked if only one public hearing was foreseen in this entire process.

Commissioner Bell clarified that her item required at least one public hearing, although there could be more than one.

Commissioner Bovo said that he would be more comfortable if the item provided for more than one public hearing, or specified the number of public hearings to be held. He noted some residents could overlook or not be able to attend a meeting if only one was scheduled. He suggested that at least three meetings be held to allow members of the community to provide as much input as necessary. He said that ultimately, the residents of Miami-Dade County would have to decide whether they wanted their government to govern regionally. Commissioner Bovo observed that perhaps the conditions that prompted a moratorium a few years ago, no longer existed. He said that he was in favor of requiring ten percent of the residents to sign to initiate the petition process, but believed 20 percent was fair. He asked that the item provide for at least three public hearings, and offered this as an amendment.

Commissioner Bell noted she accepted the amendment.

Vice Chairwoman Edmonson asked if her colleagues wished to have a working lunch or to recess.

Chairman Martinez resumed the Chair, and recommended a working lunch, to which the other Commission members agreed, unanimously.

Commissioner Heyman said that she supported Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 with the two amendments proffered. She said she believed the original item proposed be the Task Force was irresponsibly crafted. However, she noted, the alternate item restores the Commission’s authority to approve or deny incorporations, and this would ensure that the Commission would consider the impact of every proposed incorporation on the County as a whole. She stressed the importance of transparency, and of providing information to the residents on the actual cost of incorporating. She referred to the old adage which said that it was always possible to find ten percent of anybody against a person or a cause; therefore, she supported requiring 20 percent of the residents to sign to initiate the petition process.

Chairman Martinez relinquished the Chair to Vice Chairwoman Edmonson.

Commissioner Souto said he supported Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No.1, in general. He asked the County Attorney if the original item was approved by 2/3 of the members of the Charter Review Task Force.

County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that Agenda Item 10A3 was approved by 2/3 of the Task Force members.

Commissioner Souto asked whether this meant that this item was supposed to be placed on the ballot.

County Attorney Cuevas clarified that the resolution creating the Task Force provided that it was the Commission’s intent to place any item adopted with a 2/3 vote on the ballot.

Commissioner Souto pointed out that if the Commission members now wished to modify this agreement, they were being disloyal. In addition, Commissioner Souto noted usually a small percentage of the electorate voted in Miami-Dade County’s elections, and yet the alternate item was requiring 20 percent of the residents to sign to initiate the petition process. He said that the Commission should make it as easy as possible for the people to vote. He reminded his fellow Commission members that the Bill of Rights urged convenient access for voting, and yet this County had made it difficult for people to vote.

Commissioner Diaz pointed out that the Commission had been dealing with this topic for a long time. He referred to a report that was written on the deliberations of an Annexation Subcommittee, which lasted two years, and were informed by public input. Yet, he noted, only one member of the Charter Review Task Force referred to this report. He said that much of the findings of the report had been incorporated into the County Code over the years, and promised to provide copies of the report to his fellow Commission members. Commissioner Diaz said that at this time when the County was emerging from a financial crisis, the Commission needed the flexibility to adjust. He asked the Assistant County Attorney to provide a brief overview of the difference between the proposal and what was currently in the Code.

Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks stressed that one significant change was that the Commission would have to vote. She explained that under the current legislation, the Commission had the discretion to approve, deny or proceed with consideration of an incorporation. She said the current process provided that the petition had 90 days to circulate, whereas the Alternate item provided that the petition had six months to circulate.

Commissioner Diaz asked whether the tax base would increase if an area was annexed.

Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks said that this would be a point for the Commission members’ consideration as they decided whether to approve a particular annexation.

Commissioner Diaz referred to the report of the Annexation Subcommittee and explained that this body took into account all of these issues in its deliberations. He pointed out that the difference between what was currently in the Code and Commissioner Bell’s proposal was that it required 20 percent of the residents to sign to initiate the petition process, and the Commission members to verify whether the tax base would be increased if an area was annexed.

Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks indicated that Commissioner Bell’s proposal specifically required that the Commission members consider this issue, among whatever other issues they deemed relevant and appropriate.

Commissioner Diaz noted Medley was in his district. He said that the annexation process for Medley, Doral, Miami Springs, and Virginia Gardens had been held up due to the economic situation. He noted the representative of one of these cities spoke during the public hearing and indicated that the residents were not part of the discussion; yet the game was being changed on them after they had gone through this process for several years. He said that under Commissioner Bell’s proposal their application may be rejected because they may benefit economically from the annexation.

County Attorney Cuevas advised that Commissioner Bell’s proposal simply provided that in making the decision the Commission members would have to consider this point; it did not say that an item would have to necessarily be rejected on that basis.

Commissioner Diaz said he would be more comfortable to remove this requirement if this was the only difference between Commissioner Bell’s proposal and what was currently in the Code.

County Attorney Cuevas advised that Agenda Item 10A3 required a 2/3 vote of Commission members to approve an annexation, whereas Alternate No. 1 required a simple majority to approve an annexation.

Pursuant to Commissioner Souto’s question, the County Attorney clarified that currently in the Code a simple majority vote was required to approve an annexation; Agenda Item 10A3 increased this to a 2/3 vote; and Commissioner Bell’s item provided that annexations could be approved by a simple majority.

Chairman Martinez resumed the Chair.

Commissioner Diaz said that he supported Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1, but he asked if Commissioner Bell would be willing to remove the requirement that Commission members verify whether the tax base would be increased if an area was annexed. He suggested that this language be replaced with the requirement that Commission members exercise all due diligence required for an annexation.

Commissioner Bell said this was only one of many considerations to ensure that the Commission members took into account the economic impact of the annexation. She stressed that it did not negate the annexation.

Commissioner Diaz asked whether the Commission members considered the economic benefit of an annexation under the current process.

County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that under the Code the Commission members considered all of those factors currently; he clarified that this item would include this consideration in the Charter, but would not pre-ordain the outcome.

Commissioner Suarez said that placing the Task Force’s 16 proposals on the ballot would be a disaster. He noted he concurred with Commissioner Monestime that the Commission members should include a threshold in the Charter that was lower than 20 percent. Commissioner Suarez said he would support Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 with the proffered amendments.

Commissioner Jordan said she would like to follow up on Commissioner Bovo’s proffered amendment, noting she agreed with requiring three public hearings. In addition, she said she would require that they rotate within the boundaries to ensure true outreach. She also expressed concern that this petition process would not require a notary, which could lead to a different level of accuracy and credibility. She said that she would not want this process to be challenged due to questions regarding the legitimacy of signatures.

Commissioner Jordan pointed out that when 25 percent of the residents were required to sign to initiate the petition process, it was unrealistic to expect that this number of signatures could be gathered in 90 days. She said that Commissioner Bell’s item reduced the required percentage of signatures to 20 percent and extended the time allowed to gather the signatures to 6 months. She explained that during incorporations communities were not informed of the additional costs involved if they wanted to form their own police department. She said that she had introduced legislation to ensure that communities received all relevant information to enable them to make informed decisions regarding incorporations.

Commissioner Moss asked how the proposed process would affect boundary changes, noting this was one of the reasons he was in favor of the Commission’s involvement in the process.

Commissioner Moss pointed out that this was why he wanted to be involved in the incorporation process, particularly in his district. He said that he supported requiring three public hearings, but he was concerned about the removal of the notary requirement. He asked the County Attorneys how the signatures would be validated if this requirement was removed.

Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks explained that the Supervisor of Elections would compare the signatures that are in the Elections Department’s records.

Commissioner Moss pointed out that no one would be accountable with regard to who gathered the signatures.

Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks reiterated that Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 had no provision for a notary.

Commissioner Moss pointed out that the Commission members had made decisions in the past under threats and intimidation. He said that he could not support sending the Task Force recommendations directly to the voters, as it appears some of this body’s members were defending particular interests. He suggested that the Commission members take a step back and look at what was in the best interest of the entire community and not a special interest group.

Chairman Martinez inquired whether this proposed item exempted the municipalities currently in the pipeline.

Assistant County Attorney Coller indicated that the original item prepared by the Task Force provided that annexations could be approved with a 2/3 vote, whereas Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 removed this requirement. Therefore, if the Alternate item passed, annexations would require a majority vote for approval, as is currently.

Chairman Martinez repeated his question, and Assistant County Attorney Coller advised that the approval of the Alternate item would not impact the municipalities currently in the pipeline. He explained that if the Task Force recommendations were adopted, the municipalities currently in the pipeline would be affected because annexations would require a 2/3 vote by the County Commission members for approval. However, if the Alternate item passed, the municipalities currently in the pipeline would not be affected because annexations would only require a simple majority vote for approval.

Chairman Martinez expressed concern that this petition process would not require a notary, and asked Commissioner Bell to explain why she chose to exclude that requirement.

Commissioner Bell said that she believed the process was fair since the percentage of signatures required to initiate the petition process was reduced and the amount of time allotted to gather the signatures was increased. However, she noted, if the Commission members preferred to have the signatures certified by a notary, she would gladly accept any amendment proffered on this issue.

Chairman Martinez noted the Commission members decided that any proposed changes to the UDB had to be approved by a 2/3 vote. He pointed out that annexation and incorporation were just as important to the community as the UDB since 1.3 million people in unincorporated Miami-Dade risked losing their tax base. He noted it was just as important to require a 2/3 vote for approval of incorporations and annexations.

Pursuant to County Attorney Cuevas’ question, Commissioner Bell said that in order to satisfy the concerns of her fellow Commission members, she would be willing to amend her item to include the same notary provision that was currently in the petition process.

Chairman Martinez reiterated that he believed it was important to require a 2/3 vote for approval of incorporations and annexations because they had an impact on all the residents in the County.

Commissioner Sosa said that she agreed with the simple majority vote, the three public hearings, and restoring the notary requirement. However, she wanted to be sure that the applications that were currently in the pipeline would be exempt from the new process. She said that she requested from the Administration the list of applications that were currently in the pipeline, and would like to read them for the record: the Municipal Advisory Committees (MAC) from North East, North Central, Fontainebleau, Fisher Island, and Biscayne Gardens; applications in process for annexations from Medley, Virginia Gardens, Miami Springs, Doral, North Miami, North Miami Beach, and Sweetwater; applications in the process of being received from El Portal, and West Miami. She said that if this list was annexed to Commissioner Bell’s item, she would be able to support it.

County Attorney Cuevas said that his office could provide language indicating that the applications currently in the pipeline would continue to be governed by the guidelines currently in existence.

Chairman Martinez inquired whether this language would be included in the ballot.

County Attorney Cuevas indicated that the question in the ballot could specify that this proposal would only apply to processes initiated subsequent to a certain date.

Commissioner Bell noted all that was needed was to add the word "new". She said that when this item was being crafted they made sure that the language in Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 would not negatively impact the applications currently in the pipeline.

Commissioner Sosa stressed that she wanted to ensure that none of the applications on the list that she read would be negatively impacted by the item.

County Attorney Cuevas inquired whether the sponsor would agree to an amendment to the item that would expressly provide that the applications currently in the pipeline would continue to be governed by the guidelines currently in existence. He asked Commissioner Sosa whether the list which she read contained only annexations.

Commissioner Sosa indicated that the list contained applications for incorporation, annexation, and applications in the process of being received.

Chairman Martinez noted recently some municipalities were in the process of annexation, but they withdrew their applications. He inquired whether they would be considered to be new applications or in the pipeline.

County Attorney Cuevas clarified that Chairman Martinez was concerned about what would happen if the application was put on hold for some time; would the application be considered as a new one once the process was resumed. He acknowledged that this was a potential issue that the Commission would have to resolve.

Ms. Jennifer Moon, Director, Office of Management and Budget Department, indicated that each of the four cities in the annexation process chose to defer; therefore, they were still in the process.

County Attorney Cuevas read the list submitted by Commissioner Sosa and asked whether she wanted to add Florida City.

Commissioner Sosa confirmed that Florida City should be added to the list.

Commissioner Souto asked County Attorney Cuevas whether the Code provided that for any annexations to occur the commissioner of that area had to concur.

County Attorney Cuevas indicated that the Code contained a provision which stated that a commissioner could initiate an annexation.

Commissioner Souto asked what would happen if a person tried to initiate an annexation, and the commissioner of that area did not concur with this proposal.

County Attorney Cuevas said that the Code currently did not address this issue. He explained that Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 provided that if a petition was filed, and met the requirements, it would have to come to the Commission for its consideration. Therefore, if Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 passes, then it would preclude the ordinance which Commissioner Souto was espousing.

Commissioner Souto said that he was referring to annexations. He noted, if a city tried to annex a portion of an unincorporated municipal service area(s) (UMSA), which was in his district, he should have the ability to prevent that annexation from taking place.

County Attorney Cuevas said that he misunderstood; he noted he believed that Commissioner Souto was referring to incorporations. He said that his office could draft such an ordinance, as it relates to annexations.

Commissioner Souto asked the County Attorney to draft this ordinance.

County Attorney Cuevas inquired whether Commissioner Bell wished to include that expressed language in her item.

Commissioner Bell asked County Attorney Cuevas to write the language for her consideration. She said that she was in agreement with the amendments previously proffered, but was unsure about the amendment put forth by Commissioner Souto.

Commissioner Souto noted the City of Sweetwater wanted to annex a portion of his district. He stressed that he was elected to represent his district and would not accept this attempt under any circumstances. He said that he had been placed on the Commission to protect and defend the people that he represented. He noted this was why he wanted to introduce this ordinance, and if Commissioner Bell’s item was facilitating the City of Sweetwater’s undertaking, it was wrong.

Chairman Martinez relinquished the Chair to Vice Chairwoman Edmonson.

County Attorney Cuevas clarified that, while Agenda Item 10A3 Alternate No. 1 provides an additional process for incorporation, the current process that was in the Code was still in place. Therefore, any existing applications could pursue incorporation under the current process.

Commissioner Diaz noted he represented the City of Sweetwater as it was located in his district. He said that out of respect, every commissioner should be informed of any annexation that involved his/her district, and he believed that a resolution to this effect had been adopted in the past. He stated that if an issue involving the City of Sweetwater arose, his office should be informed immediately.

County Attorney Cuevas indicated that he had been informed by Commissioner Souto of this issue and at his request had been to his district to look at the property in question. However, no action had been taken and no opinion had been rendered, he stated.

Commissioner Bell expressed appreciation for the amendments put forth by her fellow commissioners. She noted if it gave the Commission members a level of comfort to provide that any proposed annexation must be approved by a 2/3 vote, then she would accept that amendment. She also noted she would accept the amendments relating to the notary provision and the three geographically rotating public hearings.

Chairman Martinez resumed the Chair.

County Attorney Cuevas advised the Commission members of two technical amendments: a scrivener’s error on handwritten page 8 should be corrected by reinstating the words “and only the Board” on 6.05 (A); and the words “for certain” on handwritten page 4 in the second bullet point of the ballot question should be deleted.

In response to County Attorney Cuevas’ question, Commissioner Bell confirmed that the three hearings could be held at different locations, as opposed to rotating.

Commissioner Diaz asked to be allowed to make a point of order. He mentioned that the residents of four cities in his district had expressed interest in annexation, and asked whether these cities – Sweetwater, Doral, Hialeah and Hialeah Gardens – were included in the list presented by Commissioner Sosa.

County Attorney Cuevas read the list. He reiterated that the item which the Commission members were voting on did not change the annexation process, except that it required the Commission members to verify whether the tax base would be increased if an area was annexed.

It was moved by Commissioner Bell that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted as amended as follows:

1. To reinstate the words “and only the Board” on handwritten page 8, Section 6.05 (A);
2. To delete the words “for certain” on handwritten page 4 in the second bullet point of the ballot question;
3. To require the Incorporation Committee to hold three public hearings at different locations within the subject area; and
4. To reinstate the notary requirement for this petition process.

This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 11-1; (Chairman Martinez voted “No”; Commissioner Souto was absent).

Chairman Martinez noted he voted “no” because the amendment requiring that any proposed annexation must be approved by a 2/3 vote, was not accepted. He said he did not agree that any change to the UDB must be approved by a 2/3 vote, while proposed annexations only required a simple majority vote.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND CREATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121409)

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND CREATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121409)

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE CHARTER TO GRANT ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS TO ENFORCE THE CITIZENS’ BILL OF RIGHTS

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE CHARTER TO GRANT ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS TO ENFORCE THE CITIZENS’ BILL OF RIGHTS (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121391)

REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal indicated that on the original item a number of municipalities were excluded; however, on the alternate item, all the municipalities were included.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 12-0; (Commissioner Suarez was absent).

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAYOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTY’S INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FUNCTIONS AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL LEVELS AND FOR CARRYING OUT THE POLICIES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD RELATED THERETO

No Motion

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman noted this item could be addressed by ordinance and an analysis by the Mayor’s office of all the departments that employ lobbyists, and engage in intergovernmental activity. She said she believed this item should not be included in the Charter.

Agenda Item 10A5 died for lack of a motion.

Commissioner Sosa recalled that at the beginning of the meeting, it was noted that Agenda Items 10A2, 10A5, and 10A9 could be accomplished by ordinance.

Chairman Martinez confirmed that it was noted that Agenda Items 10A2, 10A5, and 10A9 could be accomplished by ordinance, but he pointed out that no action was taken on these items at the beginning of the meeting.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND HOME RULE CHARTER PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO SALARIES OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Motion to adopt as amended failed

REPORT: It was moved by Commissioner Jordan that Agenda Item 10A6 be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bell for discussion.

Commissioner Heyman noted in the past, the voters had rejected other proposals, and the Task Force was now proposing the County’s median income for the commissioners’ salaries.

Commissioner Bell asked what the rationale was for the Task Force proposing that this salary would not come into effect before the year 2016. She said that the salaries should be effective immediately.

Commissioner Heyman noted she agreed that this would be more palatable, and the item should be amended to propose that the salaries will be effective immediately.

Commissioner Diaz noted the voters had already made their opinions quite clear on this issue.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted, as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bell, and upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 2-8; (Commissioners Heyman and Bell voted “Yes”; Commissioners Jordan, Monestime, Barreiro, Sosa, Moss, Souto, Diaz, and Bovo voted “No”; Chairman Martinez and Commissioners Edmonson and Suarez were absent).

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO REMOVE THE MAYORAL AUTHORITY TO VETO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S RESOLUTION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IMPASSE

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO EXTEND THE TIME TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION TO FILL A MAYORAL OR COMMISSIONER VACANCY, TO PROVIDE A TIMEFRAME FOR QUALIFICATION AND ANY NECESSARY RUNOFF AND TO TEMPORARILY TRANSFER, DURING A MAYORAL VACANCY, CERTAIN MAYORAL POWERS

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO EXTEND THE TIME TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION TO FILL A MAYORAL OR COMMISSIONER VACANCY, TO PROVIDE A TIMEFRAME FOR QUALIFICATION AND ANY NECESSARY RUNOFF AND TO TEMPORARILY TRANSFER, DURING A MAYORAL VACANCY, CERTAIN MAYORAL POWERS (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121401)

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO EXTEND THE TIME TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION TO FILL A MAYORAL OR COMMISSIONER VACANCY, TO PROVIDE A TIMEFRAME FOR QUALIFICATION AND ANY NECESSARY RUNOFF AND TO TEMPORARILY TRANSFER, DURING A MAYORAL VACANCY, CERTAIN MAYORAL POWERS (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121401)

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO EXTEND THE TIME TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION TO FILL A MAYORAL OR COMMISSIONER VACANCY, TO PROVIDE A TIMEFRAME FOR QUALIFICATION AND ANY NECESSARY RUNOFF AND TO TEMPORARILY TRANSFER, DURING A MAYORAL VACANCY, CERTAIN MAYORAL POWERS (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121498)

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman noted this item pertained to mayoral vacancies, and at the request of the Clerk of the Courts, it replaced the Clerk by the BCC Chair, or Vice Chair, or a commissioner chosen by the Commission members.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that Agenda Item 10A8 Alternate 2 be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, followed by discussion.

Commissioner Bovo noted he supported the item, and asked whether it would it be wise to ask the person filling in to serve until the next election if a mayoral position was vacated.

Commissioner Heyman said that the item did not call for a special election and only addressed succession; therefore, no election would be necessary to replace the Mayor.

Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal indicated that this item only addressed the gap between the time when the vacancy occurred until it was filled pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Charter. That section allows such a vacancy to be filled by election or by BCC appointment.

Commissioner Bovo explained that in the City of Hialeah, if a mayoral vacancy occurred, the City Council President would become the Mayor and serve until the next election, which saved the cost of organizing a special election.

Commissioner Diaz pointed out that the specific question which the Commission members were considering today was who would fill the mayoral vacancy.

Commissioner Heyman asked the Assistant County Attorney whether Commissioner Bovo’s suggestion could be addressed by ordinance.

Commissioner Heyman noted the item under discussion only addressed the succession in case of a mayoral vacancy. However, she said that Commissioner Bovo raised an important issue, and if it could only be addressed through a Charter amendment, perhaps it would be better to consolidate both issues into one item before making a decision.

Mayor Gimenez noted the Commission always had the right to name a Mayor. He said that the problem arose when the Commission members decided not to name a Mayor but to have an election instead, and during the time that the election is organized, there is a mayoral vacancy. He explained that it was only possible to fill this vacancy pursuant to the Charter, because a number of mayoral duties and powers were granted by this proposal. He pointed out that if the Commission members decided to appoint the BCC Chair or Vice Chair as Mayor, he/she would have all of the mayoral powers.

Commissioner Jordan noted she concurred with the Mayor that this item was unnecessary, because the Commission already had the authority to fill a mayoral vacancy. However, the Commission chose not to exercise this authority, but rather to have a Mayor appointed pursuant to an election. She asked whether it was possible for the Commission members to pass an ordinance outlining the process to follow in the event the Mayor was incapacitated.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal noted this would not be possible because some of the Mayor’s powers were granted by the Charter. Therefore, this would require a Charter amendment, and the most efficient way to do this would be to amend the present item to include incapacity, he advised. Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal explained that Section 1.07 of the Charter provides that in the event the Board appoints a Mayor, the appointment would only be valid until the next countywide election.

Commissioner Jordan asked Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal whether it would be possible for him to amend the item’s language to include incapacitation.

Chairman Martinez asked the County Attorney to list the powers that are to be exercised exclusively by the Mayor according to the Charter.

County Attorney Cuevas indicated that he recently wrote a memorandum listing these powers, and asked his staff to obtain a copy.

Commissioner Monestime said that he was in favor of filling the vacancy until the next election to provide stability. He noted this was done in various other areas of government; for example, the Lieutenant Governor filled in if the Office of the Governor became vacant.

County Attorney Cuevas referred to the memorandum which he wrote on the subject of non delegable mayoral powers and responsibilities that cannot be exercised by others during a vacancy in the Office of the Mayor. He said these included: appointment and dismissal of the County Manager, appointment and dismissal of department directors, veto of legislative quasi-judicial zoning master plan or land use decisions of the County Commission including the budget, preparation and delivery of an annual report on the state of the County, budgetary address, preparation of a proposed budget, written recommendations required for waiver of competitive bidding, establishment of departments by administrative orders, and issuance of administrative orders, rules and regulations.

Chairman Martinez asked the Assistant County Attorney to clarify Section 2.03 of the item, which seemed to indicate that the person who filled the vacancy would not qualify to run for the position of Mayor.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal confirmed that the person who was filling in for the Mayor would not qualify to run in an election to fill the vacancy.

Commissioner Heyman noted her intent in putting forth Agenda Item 10A8 Alternate 2 was to remove the Clerk of the Courts. She said she believed that it was important to have a discussion regarding the hierarchy for succession purposes in the event of a mayoral vacancy; and the discussion revealed that it was also important to add a process in the event of mayoral incapacity. She indicated that she would be willing to accept an amendment on the point raised by Chairman Martinez.

Chairman Martinez suggested that Section 2.03 of the item be removed. He also recommended that a definition of the term incapacitated be provided.

Commissioner Heyman noted she agreed with Chairman Martinez’ suggestion regarding Section 2.03 of the item. She asked the Assistant County Attorney to provide a definition of the term incapacitated.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal noted pursuant to the request of the sponsor he was intending to draft an ordinance which would define incapacity by including all possible types of incapacity. He advised that this would make it clear when the incapacity was over and when the powers and responsibilities could be restored to the incumbent Mayor.

Mayor Gimenez noted he was opposed to having the Commission determine when he was incapacitated. He said that he should be considered to be incapacitated when he was physically unable to perform his duties.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that this was why he asked the Assistant County Attorney to provide the legal definition of the term incapacitated.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal said if the Commission members wanted to include a definition of incapacitated, the County Attorneys would research an appropriate definition. He cautioned the Commission members, however, that they were as wide ranging as can be imagined, and included physical as well as mental incapacity. He said that he could work with the sponsor on an appropriate definition, which he could present at the end of the meeting.

Later in the meeting, Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal reminded the Commission members that he had been asked to find a definition for the term “incapacity”. He asked the sponsor of the item whether she would proceed with Alternate 2 as it was originally drafted, or whether she wished to amend it to add the eventuality of incapacitation.

Commissioner Heyman noted the term incapacitated had never been defined, and it could be defined at a later time by ordinance. She explained that currently the law provided that if an official was incapacitated, another member of that department could fill in, and usually it was the deputy. However, the law was silent on what would happen in the event of a vacancy; as this was a pressing issue, Commissioner Heyman said that she would proceed with Alternate 2 as it was originally drafted, and wait until the Commission members defined incapacity to present another item dealing with that issue.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that the powers of a department director and those of the Mayor were completely different because the Mayor exercised powers that were granted by the Charter.

Commissioner Jordan noted she concurred with Chairman Martinez that the powers of a department director could not be compared with those of the Mayor. She suggested that the Commission proceed with including the word incapacity, noting at least it would be in the Charter. She said that at a later time, the Commission members could agree on a definition that was acceptable to everyone.

Commissioner Heyman indicated that she was willing to accept this amendment with an understanding that the term “incapacity” would be defined at a later date.

Assistant County Rosenthal advised that a provision could be included in the item stating “upon a vacancy or incapacity as set forth by ordinance”, and at a later time the term could be defined by ordinance.

Commissioner Heyman said that it was important to have a proper succession process in place to carry out County business.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted as amended to add language that would temporarily transfer certain Mayoral powers if the County Mayor was incapacitated, and to remove language that would prohibit the person filling the temporary vacancy from being elected Mayor. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 11-0 (Commissioner Suarez and Chairman Martinez were absent).

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal advised that the ballot language for Agenda Item 10A8 Alternate 2 would need to be modified to be consistent with the amendment which he just read.

Chairman Martinez noted a number of people had complained about the poor quality of the translations of the ballot language. He asked the County Attorneys to inform the Commission members before publishing the ballots to give them the opportunity to explain the questions.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal indicated that the Supervisor of Elections was responsible for the translations of the ballot questions; therefore, Chairman Martinez could request a copy of the translations when they were completed.

Chairman Martinez asked Mayor Gimenez to ensure that the Supervisor of Elections provided each Commission member with a copy of the translated ballot questions as soon as possible.
.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER REGARDING COUNTY FRANCHISE FEE AND UTILITY TAX REVENUES

Withdrawn

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman noted the Commission members had received a financial statement describing the impact this item could have on bonds, and said the Commission members should carefully consider this item’s consequences countywide to avoid hurting unincorporated Miami-Dade, the bond rating, and increasing financial obligations or liabilities. She stated that she would withdraw this item and suggested that it be done by ordinance.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER REGARDING PETITION AND RECALL PROCESS REFORM

No Motion

REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal explained that this item would remove the notary requirement for the circulator, and it would require that a cause for a recall be stated in 25 words or less.

Chairman Martinez noted Commissioner Bell restored the notary requirement in item 10A3; therefore, it should not be removed from the present item.

Item 10A10 died for lack of a motion.

Commissioner Barreiro asked whether the notary requirement was removed from the current process.

Chairman Martinez indicated that the current process included the notary requirement, as per the State standards.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO INCREASE THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT AMEND OR REPEAL AN ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORATE

No Motion

REPORT: County Attorney Cuevas noted this item involved a change from 1 to 3 years. He explained that if an ordinance was adopted by initiative, this item provided that it could not be amended, modified or repealed before three years.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO TRANSFER CERTAIN POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PREVIOUSLY ABOLISHED OFFICE OF SHERIFF FROM THE MAYOR TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT

Motion to adopt died due to lack of a second
Mover: Sally A. Heyman
Seconder:

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman noted since 1966 the Charter gave the Mayor the authority to delegate the Sheriff’s powers and functions to a suitable person. She pointed out that the Strong Mayor should be in charge of the Police Department, and the current wording of the Charter which says that the Mayor “may” delegate should be changed to “shall” delegate.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that Agenda Item 10A12 be adopted, as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bell, followed by discussion.

Commissioner Bell noted currently the Mayor had the authority to appoint the Police Director. She asked whether this item made any substantial changes.

Commissioner Heyman explained that this had been a practice since 1966, and the Strong Mayor had followed this practice. She said that the County had a separate Corrections Director, and this system seemed to work well; therefore, it should not be changed.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO CREATE A CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO CREATE A CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121396)

No Motion

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman said that she supported having a periodic Charter review, but the Task Force members proposed having the next Charter review in 2013. She noted the next general election would be held in 2016; therefore, she put forth an Alternate Item which provided that the next Charter review would be held in 2015.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that the Charter did not provide that a Charter review had to be held; what it provided was that the Commission could convene a Charter review every five years.

County Attorney Cuevas clarified that the Commission members only had to consider whether they wished to appoint a Charter Review Task Force; they did not have to in fact appoint a Task Force every five years.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO PROHIBIT COMMISSIONER RELATIONSHIPS WITH FIRMS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE COUNTY

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO PROHIBIT RELATIONSHIPS WITH FIRMS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE COUNTY [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121399]

REPORT: Commissioner Bell asked the Assistant County Attorney to explain this item.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal explained that the alternate item differed from the item proposed by the Task Force in the following ways:

• it extended all of the provisions regarding forfeiture of office to Commission members, the County Mayor, other County officials, municipal Mayors and other municipal officers, if their family members were doing business with the County;
• it allowed the Commission to define by ordinance a conflicting relationship in the forfeiture of office provision;
• it amended the ownership interest provision to provide for a significant ownership interest that would be identified by ordinance; and
• the second part of the prohibition, which pertained to the immediate family members of the Commission members, the County Mayor and other County officials, the municipal Mayors and other municipal officers, would limit this prohibition to private firms only.

Commissioner Diaz asked about the difference between private or public firms.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal clarified that the item referred to a for-profit as opposed to a non profit entity, because there would be a profit incentive for the for profit organization, whereas the non profit organization would not have the same incentive.

Commissioner Diaz asked whether an official would have to forfeit his/her office if his/her family member was working for a company that sells bottled water to a municipality.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal explained that as recommended by the Charter Review Task Force there were two separate provisions: the first provides that if a Commission member has an ownership interest in or is employed by a company that does business with the County, he/she would have to forfeit his/her office; the second provides that if an immediate family member works for a company that wants to do business with the County, that company could not do business with the County because of the relationship between the Commission member and his/her family member.

Commissioner Bell said she tried that to correct the item which received a 2/3 vote by the Task Force members.

Chairman Martinez asked whether this could be done by ordinance.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal noted the immediate family member provision could be done by ordinance, but the forfeiture of office provision could not.

It was moved by Commissioner Bell that Agenda Item 10A14 Alternate be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Barreiro, followed by discussion.

Commissioner Monestime asked what would happen with inter-local agreements with other entities and whether this would apply to the School Board.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal explained that this prohibition would not apply to the School Board. He said that if Commissioner Monestime’s sister worked for United Way, this organization would still be able to do business with the County because it was a non-profit entity.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that if his spouse worked for a for-profit company, and Commissioner Monestime’s spouse worked for a non-profit company, and they both earned $100,000 per year, there would be no difference.

Commissioner Sosa noted the County government did business with all types of companies, for-profit as well as non profit. She said that she was concerned about not allowing family members to earn a living, and pointed out that this item would bring more problems than solutions.

Commissioner Suarez noted he concurred with Commissioner Sosa. He said that the immediate family member concept loses its meaning when it relates to his family, which is so large. He pointed out that so many ethics laws existed already; it was just a matter of being transparent and abiding by them.

Commissioner Heyman said she opposed placing this item on the ballot because it could have unintended consequences; although it was a wonderful idea, it would not work in practice. She noted she concurred with Commissioner Sosa’s comment that there was only one County and one School Board and they shared contracts. She pointed out that because of the diverse nature of the work performed by the County government, it would be difficult to find a meaningful vendor or employer that did not have ties to the County. She said that the Commission could determine if there was profiteering, and this issue should be addressed by ordinance.

Commissioner Bell explained that the reason she put forth this alternate item was because Agenda Item 10A14 was adopted by a vote of 16-0, and she wanted to honor the Commission’s intent to place any item receiving a 2/3 vote on the ballot. She said that this item gave the Commission the opportunity to define a conflict of interest, and in order for it to apply there would have to be a substantial financial interest.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAYOR NOT PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY PROCUREMENTS WHEN THE MAYOR HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAYOR NOT PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY PROCUREMENTS WHEN THE MAYOR HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 121398)

REPORT: Commissioner Heyman noted this item replaced the Clerk of the Courts with the BCC Chair or Vice Chair, at the request of the Clerk.

Mayor Gimenez noted he supported this item. He said the right thing to do if he had a conflict of interest was to recuse himself; however, presently, if he recused himself, he would have to give the procurement authority to one of his subordinates, which was not proper.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that Agenda Item 10A15 Alternate be adopted, as presented. This item was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, followed by discussion.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that what the item was proposing was not proper either, noting if the Mayor recused himself because of a conflict regarding a procurement item, and the BCC Chair filled in for the Mayor, the Chair could place the item on the agenda, and vote on it.

Mayor Gimenez said he was in favor of the Clerk of the Courts filling in for him in case of a conflict of interest regarding a procurement item.

Commissioner Diaz suggested that if the Mayor recused himself because of a conflict of interest, and the BCC Chair was chosen to fill in for him, the BCC Chair should not vote on that particular item.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal clarified that this item did not provide that the Chair or the Clerk would have veto authority over the procurement matter; he would only have the authority to make a recommendation with regard to a bid waiver.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that whether the Mayor retained the authority over the procurement matter or was replaced by the BCC Chair, a potential conflict of interest was involved.

Commissioner Barreiro said that the Clerk of the Courts as a State constitutional officer had procurement powers as a State official.

Commissioner Suarez suggested that Agenda Item 10A15 Alternate provide that for this type of procurement matter there would be no veto power, and the bid waiver would be handled by the BCC Chair.

Chairman Martinez pointed out that the BCC Chair would still place the item on the agenda, assign it to a Committee, and vote on it. He stressed that if the Commission members included this in the Charter, and it was not satisfactory, the Commission would be unable to remove it for quite some time.

Commissioner Suarez said that in this unusual circumstance, the Commission members should let the legislature do what is typically done by the executive branch. He asked whether the sponsor would accept a friendly amendment specifying that for this type of procurement matter there would be no veto power.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal stated that as currently drafted, the Mayor had the power to veto the procurement item.

Chairman Martinez inquired whether this issue was so important that it had to be included in the Charter now.

Mayor Gimenez said he believed this item was extremely important, because whenever he was faced with this type of procurement, he was unsure how to handle it. He noted his son worked for a construction company and whenever that company put in a bid with the County he had to recuse himself and assign it to a deputy. He said that he did not want any appearance of impropriety. He stressed that having the Clerk of the Courts fill in for him was the cleanest method, because he is a countywide elected official, has administrative duties, and does not vote on procurement matters. He noted he believed this issue should be included in the Charter.
Commissioner Sosa noted the Assistant County Attorney had informed her that delegated authority could be transferred by ordinance in the case of the conflict itself; however, it would not be possible to transfer the Charter powers.

Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal advised that everything could be done by ordinance with the exception of bid waivers, and this was what was being discussed right now.

Commissioner Heyman pointed out that the Clerk of the Courts is responsible for the Commission, handles bid protests, selects the hearing officer, and does not want anybody in his office to recommend awards when the Mayor has a conflict, because this would jeopardize the neutrality of his office. She said that this circumstance was very rare, noting in ten years there had only been three vetoes. However, it was important to have a contingency plan in place, because if no one was identified to fill the mayoral vacancy when the Mayor had a conflict, it could be extremely costly for the County.

RESOLUTION PLACING A NON-BINDING STRAW BALLOT QUESTION ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WHETHER THEY SUPPORT, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, PROHIBITING FURTHER THE USE OF TAXPAYER’S DOLLARS TO PROCURE SERVICES AND PROJECTS FROM COMPANIES ACTIVELY DOING BUSINESS WITH STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

REPORT: It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that Agenda Item 10A16 be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Souto, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 11-0; (Commissioners Moss and Suarez were absent).

RESOLUTION PLACING A NON-BINDING STRAW BALLOT QUESTION ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WHETHER THEY SUPPORT MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ISSUING PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR NEW OR RENOVATED JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE EXPANSION OF PRIMARY CARE CLINICS

Withdrawn

REPORT: Commissioner Jordan said that she wanted to withdraw Agenda Item 10A17, noting she had discussions with the Public Health Trust, the Financial Recovery Board, and the union, and they jointly decided that more time was needed to ensure that the public was aware of the issue. She also said she wanted to put on the record that she was informed that Jackson Memorial Hospital had some funds which would enable it to issue some bonds. On the other hand, she expressed concern regarding the Request for Proposal (RFP) that was released to privatize the emergency room and the rape treatment center. She said she hoped the Financial Recovery Board would seriously consider this issue.

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO ESTABLISH AN ELECTED SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AS A CHARTER OFFICE

REPORT: County Attorney Robert Cuevas advised that a scrivener's error existed and should be corrected to change the year that this proposed resolution would be implemented from 2012 to 2014.

Chairman Martinez relinquished the Chair to Vice Chairwoman Edmonson.

It was moved by Commissioner Martinez that this proposed resolution be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 6-5 (Commissioners Heyman, Jordan, Bell, Bovo, and Sosa voted "No"; Commissioners Moss and Souto were absent).

Commissioner Sosa asked whether the Administration had a study of the cost of creating a separate election department. She pointed out that establishing an elected Supervisor of Elections would politicize the office, and asked who would be responsible for overseeing the elections when the candidate for the position was running for office.

Chairman Martinez inquired whether Miami-Dade County was the only county in Florida without an elected Supervisor of Elections. He pointed out that this item was not creating a new department; it was simply changing the way the head of the department was chosen. He noted the same thing happened with the Property Appraiser.

Commissioner Sosa asked whether the budget of the Property Appraiser’s office increased after he became an elected official.

Ms. Jennifer Moon, Director, Office of Management and Budget, indicated that the budget had increased between $5-6 million since the Property Appraiser became an elected official. She explained that the Florida Department of Revenue had to authorize that office’s budget, and positions were added to deal with the new requirement relating to annual review of properties.

Commissioner Diaz noted he recalled that the Commission members had already voted on this item.

Vice Chairwoman Edmonson asked the County Attorney whether this was a legal vote.

County Attorney Cuevas pointed out that the Clerk recorded the vote; therefore, it was legal.

Commissioner Jordan noted this was a rushed vote, and the Commission members were not given sufficient time for questions.

It was moved by Commissioner Martinez that Agenda Item 10A18 be reconsidered. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Barreiro, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a unanimous vote of those members present; (Commissioner Moss was absent).

It was moved by Chairman Martinez that Agenda Item 10A18 be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, followed by discussion.

Commissioner Jordan noted these two items appeared at the last minute and the motive behind them was questionable. She said she believed one item was on the agenda to justify the other. She indicated that she sent a letter to the Elections Supervisor congratulating her for conducting a flawless election, especially since redistricting just occurred. She stressed that she was opposed to having an elected Elections Supervisor and Director of Public Safety. She noted she believed this would make the offices of the Elections Supervisor and of the Director of Public Safety more political and not responsive to the needs of this community. She stated that it did not matter if the other counties in the State had an elected Elections Supervisor of elections, as each county did what was best for its residents. She said that she believed these two items were self-serving, and she would not support them.

Commissioner Suarez noted an elected official should have some discretionary powers, and he could not identify any which would be exercised by the Supervisor of Elections. He pointed out that the Supervisor of Elections position was a classic ministerial position, and he would vote against this item.

Commissioner Heyman said that Miami-Dade County was unique. She noted when an official was elected, he/she had to meet set standards; however, when an official was appointed, he/she could be required to satisfy other criteria, including passing a background check, and meeting certain academic or professional standards. She stressed that each office needed to be considered independently, and for these reasons, she would not support this item.

Commissioner Diaz said he believed accountability was extremely important, and this is what the people expected from the officials representing them. He noted it was time for the residents of the County to know who was responsible for certain things. He reiterated that 66 out of 67 counties in Florida had an elected Elections Supervisor, and indicated that he would support this item.

Vice Chairwoman Edmonson asked if the issue of converting the Supervisor of Elections office into an elected office was ever placed on the ballot.

Commissioner Monestime commended Chairman Martinez for moving to reconsider this item. He acknowledged that Miami-Dade County was the only county in the State of Florida that did not have an elected Elections Supervisor, but this was because it was unique. He said he would not support this item.

Commissioner Edmonson said that she heard all of her colleagues’ comments, but pointed out that the only thing the Chair wanted was to send this item to the electors and let them decide. She noted it seemed that it was premature to put this item on the ballot, but after the Commission members had enough time to digest it, perhaps they could reconsider it.

Chairman Martinez said placing this item on the ballot was not self-serving, nor a question of timing, because it pertained to the 2014 election. He noted he did not understand why converting the Property Appraiser’s office to an elected office was not problematic. He indicated that the only thing this item would do was let the people decide if they wanted the Supervisor of Elections to be elected.

It was moved by Chairman Martinez that Agenda Item 10A18 be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 9-3; (Commissioners Bovo, Souto, Bell, Suarez, Sosa, Heyman, Edmonson, Monestime, Jordan voted “No”; Commissioner Moss was absent).

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO ESTABLISH AN ELECTED POLICE DIRECTOR AS A CHARTER OFFICE

REPORT: It was moved by Chairman Martinez that Agenda Item 10A19 be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 10-2; (Commissioners Barreiro, Bovo, Souto, Bell, Suarez, Sosa, Heyman, Edmonson, Monestime, Jordan voted “No”; Commissioner Moss was absent).

RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO PROHIBIT OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT, INCREASE SALARIES, AND LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TERMS OF SERVICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Motion to adopt died due to lack of a second
Mover: Barbara J. Jordan
Seconder:

REPORT: It was moved by Commissioner Jordan that Agenda Item 10A20 be adopted, as presented.

RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. R-254-12 AND CANCELING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SET TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012

REPORT: It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that Agenda Item 10A21be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan, followed by discussion.

Commissioner Edmonson said that she voted against it the last time, and she was convinced that once the Commission voted on an item, the vote should not be modified. She noted, the item had already been placed on the ballot, and the public was looking forward to voting on this issue. Therefore, even though she was on the losing side the last time, and would still vote “no” on this item, perhaps the public should be given a chance to vote on it.

Commissioner Heyman stressed that this was a democratic process. She said that she voted against term limits over and over, but she noted she agreed with Commissioner Edmonson, and maybe it was time to let it get vetted out.

Commissioner Sosa said that initially, she was a co-prime sponsor to put this item on the ballot, and the idea to place the question on its own without including the question of salaries, was well received. She pointed out that the voters had an expectation that they would be able to vote on this item in the November elections; to remove it now would affect the image of the Commission negatively. She stressed that the Commission should honor its previous vote.

Commissioner Diaz noted he agreed with Commissioner Sosa that the Commission should honor its previous vote, but he pointed out that when he asked the residents of his community about term limits, they were against them. He said that term limits would do nothing but give more power to the lobbyists, and disenfranchise the public; the Commission members should not vote for something they do not believe in, stressed Commissioner Diaz.

Commissioner Suarez clarified that in order for the question to be placed on the ballot, the Commission members would have to vote “no” on this item.

Commissioner Jordan commended Commissioner Diaz for his comments. She pointed out that in Tallahassee the new legislators had to rely on the lobbyists because they were the only ones with historical information and institutional knowledge. She noted since the County was larger than many states it took a year or two just to know who to call in the Administration to get anything done. She said that she was very proud of all that Commissioner Moss was able to accomplish in South Dade, noting this was because he had been in office for such a long time. She pointed out that the biggest lobbyist in Miami-Dade was the Miami Herald, which promoted through its editorial page the opinion of the author. Commissioner Jordan stressed that none of the Commission members believed in term limits; they were simply responding to what the constituency said they wanted, but this was determined by what the media told them repeatedly. She stressed the District 1 residents never told her that they wanted term limits; they told her to continue doing her job in order to respond to the needs of the community.

Chairman Martinez said that he originally voted against this item, because he did not believe in term limits, and if term limits were adopted, commissioners should be able to stay 12 years in office. However, he pointed out, any commissioner who truly believed that terms should be limited to eight years, could simply choose to limit his/her term in office to eight years, without imposing this on the other commissioners.

Commissioner Sosa said that any commissioner could have their personal opinion in favor or against term limits, but by sponsoring this item, they were responding to a question that was being asked over and over. She noted perhaps some of the commissioners’ constituents were against term limits, but her constituents favored term limits, and she had to be responsive to the concerns of the people who elected her. She reiterated that the voters had an expectation that they would be able to vote on this item in the November elections; to remove it now would affect the image of the Commission negatively.

Chairman Martinez noted he agreed that since the decision had already been taken to place this item on the ballot, the Commission members could not renege on their decision. However, he pointed out that his constituents were not telling him that they were in favor of eight-year terms; they were telling him that they were in favor of elections for the Supervisor of Elections and the Sheriff.

Commissioner Moss noted he wanted to bring this item before the Board in an atmosphere that was free of intimidation, threat and innuendo. He said that the last election demonstrated that the people are still in charge. He stated that during his re-election campaign, the residents were mostly interested in jobs, not term limits. He pointed out that if the commissioners did their jobs to the best of their ability, their constituents would support them. He noted the business leaders privately told him that they agreed with him. He reiterated that the last election showed clearly that despite all that was said, the residents voted for him because he was working on their behalf. He stated that this should be a cue for the Commission members to take back the County.

Commissioner Heyman asked the County Attorneys whether the item which they were considering was properly before the Commission.

Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal confirmed that the item which rescinded the countywide special election was properly before them.

Commissioner Heyman asked whether it could be amended to provide 12-year term limits, since it appeared that no commissioner was in favor of eight-year term limits.

County Attorney Cuevas explained that the call for renewal provides that “the purpose of the application is to place on the agenda a resolution to rescind Resolution No. R254-12”; therefore, it appears that the call was limited to rescinding, and not to amending.

Commissioner Heyman asked whether the amount of time pertaining to the duration of term limits could be changed.

County Attorney Cuevas explained that this would not be possible, because the application for renewal limited the options to rescinding the item.

Commissioner Heyman pointed out that if there was notice to rescind term limits and the Commission members had not voted within the last six months on 12-year term limits, there would be no time restriction.

County Attorney Cuevas explained that the Commission members had already approved Resolution R254-12 within the last six months, which put the item with an eight-year term limit on the ballot for the November General election. He advised that in order for the commissioners to consider it anew within six months, an application for renewal would be necessary. He noted the application for renewal that was circulated and signed provided expressly that the purpose for renewal was to rescind the resolution.

Commissioner Heyman noted the public notice and time frame requirements were met; she asked whether the item could be amended since it pertained to the same subject.

County Attorney Cuevas said that in his view this was not possible because the public notice referred to the act of rescinding, not amending.

County Attorney Cuevas noted he believed that Agenda Item 10A20 had a mover but no second. He explained that according to the Rules of Procedure if an item does not receive a motion or a second, it will be taken off the agenda; it can be put back on the agenda by an application for renewal. He advised that this would be a vehicle to amend the item; however, the Commission members would still have to pass Agenda Item 10A21.

Commissioner Heyman pointed out that she had some reservations regarding Agenda Item 10A20.

County Attorney Cuevas advised that it could be amended, and the County Attorneys could draft the application for renewal.

Commissioner Heyman noted Agenda Item 10A20 had three components: no outside employment, salary state formula, and term limits. She said that when ballot questions were compounded the voters were reluctant to vote favorably; therefore, she would not pursue this option.

It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that Agenda Item 10A21be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan, and upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 3-9; (Commissioners Bovo, Heyman, Monestime, Bell, Edmonson, Sosa, Souto, Suarez and Barreiro voted “No”; Chairman Martinez was absent).

4. Commissioner Heyman requested that Mayor Gimenez identify unskilled labor type jobs, which could be performed by the inmate population and persons required to work court mandated community service; and that he also review the feasibility of utilizing those individuals to perform those jobs and be paid based on the formula developed by the State.

5. Commissioner Heyman requested that Mayor Gimenez review the proposed FY2012-13 budget for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to reduce the staffing level to have one full-time person per session in that office and have those funds re-appropriated to the Board’s budget to allow county commissioners to continue engaging in legislative lobbying activities.

6. Commissioner Heyman requested that Mayor Gimenez apprise all County employees of the Board of County Commissioners’ intent to maintain the mileage rate for FY2012-13 budget at the current level and utilize the $23 million Impasse Reserve Fund to resolve budgetary adjustments and probably not impose the 4% employees’ contribution.

7. Commissioner Bovo asked that Mayor Gimenez review the issue of canal maintenance within the UMSA areas and County Commission District 13.

8. Commissioner Bovo requested that the funding issue of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) be reviewed, and he requested that he be provided with a copy of the funding criteria and guidelines to allocate funds to these organizations and whether the County was the sole provider of funding.

9. Commissioner Bovo asked that Mayor Gimenez revisit the practice of using Sergeant-At-Arms as chauffeurs for county commissioners.

10. Commissioner Jordan asked that Mayor Gimenez meet with her in order to have a personal discussion on her budgetary priorities in detail to include her top priority, which was returning the 4% contribution towards healthcare costs imposed on County employees. She also asked that the Mayor be prepared to discuss the issue of economic diversity.

11. Commissioner Jordan recommended that the State correctional labor force be utilized to provide those services in order to supplement the County’s existing lawn maintenance cycles.

12. Commissioner Jordan asked that the maintenance schedules for bus and train terminals of the Miami-Dade Transit be revisited to include the mechanical maintenance schedules of Metrobuses. She also requested that efficiencies be identified in order to improve the maintenance of the transit system and ensure passengers’ safety.

13. Commissioner Jordan asked Mayor Gimenez to check and ensure the provisions of the ordinance enacted by the Board providing that small business contractors not be required to post a bond for contracts in the amount of $200,000 or less were being enforced in all County departments.

14. Commissioner Jordan asked that Mayor Gimenez review the enforcement efforts of the County’s Small Business Development Division to ensure all businesses in Miami-Dade County were registered and monitored. She also requested that the Mayor review the procedures of that department to ensure contracting opportunities were provided to all businesses.

15. Commissioner Jordan asked that Mayor Gimenez review enforcement of the Wage Theft Ordinance to ensure workers received a fair wage for their labor, particularly the Head Start employees.

3

ADJOURNMENT

REPORT: There being no other business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

Note: These minutes were archived without the Chairman’s signature because the Chairman’s term of office expired before acquiring his signature.